|
|
|
|
|
prime
concern:
Biotechnology for |
|
|
against
|
|
for
The
very premise of the Bill is to ensure biosafety given the fact that India is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The authorisation process of undertaking research on activities listed in the schedule provides adequate safeguards for research. The Bill has a provision to create dedicated divisions to deal with activities related to agriculture, human and animal health and environment, says Ram Kaundinya, chairman of ABLE-AG. Chapter VIII of the draft Bill deals with the creation and functions of the State Biotechnology Regulatory Advisory Committee, which will “act as the nodal agency for interaction between states and the authority in respect of matters related to the regulation of modern biotechnology under this Act and the rules and regulations made there under, therefore it is a fallacious belief that the autonomy of the states would be done away with,” he says. The Bill has a provision to create an independent appellate authority to deal with disputes, hence it will not cause any burden on civil courts. “Penalties are stringent, but for activists no Act is good,” he maintains. On the activists’ charge that the Bill does not provide scope for independent research, he says the authority will designate institutions to generate the required information. “Throughout the world, data generated by accredited institutions (public or private) will be accepted by the regulatory authorities,” he says. Regarding the conflict of interest of the department of biotechnology (DBT), he says the authority’s dependence on the DBT will be limited to finance and submitting an annual report in Parliament. “It promotes research in several areas, including agriculture. The Ministry of Agriculture does not support research in agriculture, including transgenic crops, the Science and Technology Ministry does. If not having a conflict of interest is the hallmark of independence, the government should not regulate anything or conduct any research,” he argues. Misleading drive He also trashes activists’ contention of the legislation catering to interests of the MNCs, calling them “false, baseless and frivolous”. “The Bill is focused on streamlining the procedure of development of GMOs in agriculture and the pharmaceutical sector and their safety assessments. More research is happening in public-funded institutions than in private bodies,” he says. So far, no ailment has been reported, empirically linked it to GMOs. “It is being propagated by scientists and groups who are determined to provide misinformation to the public on GM crops. Contrary to what the activists may say, acreage under Bt crops continues to grow, as does the acceptance by farmers and consumers,” Kaundinya says. CIFA secretary-general P Chengal Reddy says in 2012, the US consumption of biotech soya bean was 93 per cent, cotton 94 per cent, maize 88 per cent, canola 93 per cent and sugar beet 97 per cent. “GM crops are consumed directly and indirectly by every citizen in the US. India’s 3 million NRIs and those visiting the US also eat genetic food. Dr Manmohan Singh and other VIPs visiting the US also have genetic food during their stay like 10 million Europeans visiting the US. Neither Europeans nor Indians have complained of cancer or impotency as propagated by Indian NGOs,” he emphasises. Bt cotton success The Bill has taken care of all aspects. Details pertaining to research, evaluation and approvals of a particular GMO can be obtained by anyone. The Constitution provides powers to the High Courts and the Supreme Court to question any research project approved by the government. However, filing a case against the decision of the regulatory authority must be supported by substantial scientific evidence. Irresponsible and false accusations against the authority’s decisions are subject to legal action, he adds.
|
||
|
against
Activists
say India’s regulatory system has been found wanting on many fronts and only active engagement by civil society and scientists, judiciary and policy makers slowed down the opening of floodgates for “potentially risky GM crops”. They say while Brazil, the US and Canada are following a permissive system, China has opted for a more precautionary approach as reflected in the new draft grain law that proposes to stop any genetic modification of staple crops. “There is a need for regulating GMOs and related products, but the mandate of the regulation should be biosafety protection and not promotion of products of modern biotechnology as is being proposed by BRAI. The standing committee also pointed to the need for a biosafety protection authority instead of a biotechnology regulatory authority with a limited agenda,” says Bhushan. Regulatory system Greenpeace activist Neha Saigal says a good regulatory system would be a precautionary type adopted by China and the EU and not the approval model as followed in the US because of the risk associated with environmental release of GMOs. “While the current regulatory system under the GEAC has the right mandate to protect biosafety, this is not well established in the rules,” she says. Activists say the problems with the technology, particularly in food and farming systems where GMOs are released into the environment, are widely known and documented, but the Bill overlooks the ever-increasing evidence on human health, biodiversity and socioeconomic aspects. Even after 30 years of development and 19 years of commercialisation, GM crops cover less than 4 per cent of the total global cultivated area and is majorly limited to just soya, cotton, corn and canola; and in three countries — the US, Brazil and Argentina. “Supporting the Bill would mean accepting a single-window approval mechanism for GM crops in the country without proper safety assessment and transparency, thereby risking food and farming,” Neha says. Trashing the observation of the pro-GM group that the success of Bt cotton proved the efficacy of regulatory authorities in India, she talks of evidences of its failure in rain-fed regions. “The decline in productivity of cotton in the past few years was acknowledged by Minister of State Charan Das Mahant. It is the failure and inefficiency of our regulatory system which allows biotech companies to paint a false picture of the success of Bt cotton in India,” she claims. The main objection is to the DBT becoming a regulator, especially when other ministries like MoEF, health, rural development and agriculture are also involved. “The DBT has a mandate to develop and promote the commerce of GMOs. It is one of the biggest funding agencies for the development of GMOs. To give it the role of regulation is a conflict of interest. Besides, the MoEF, which is the nodal agency for the Cartagena Protocol under the CBD on which the national regulation of GMOs is based, has the primary mandate to safeguard biosafety from their adverse impacts,” they say. Most of the states are against field trials of GM crops. The legislation, in the current form, will take away their decision-making powers and reduce them to recommendatory capacity. Responding to allegations that activists are anti-development, Bhushan says GM crops have not contributed to the betterment of anyone in the world other than developers and dealers of biotech seeds. “Bt cotton experience is a testimony to this. It is unfortunate that developers of the technology, including multinational seed companies like Monsanto, are not ready for a scientific debate on GMOs. It is the developers of GM crops who are not permitting the country to progress towards other progressive technologies and practices in agriculture like agroecology,” Bhushan claims. Foreign hand There is no evidence to prove that GM crops will make India self-sufficient in oilseeds or food. On allegations of foreign funds to oppose the Bill, he says if the government is worried about foreign money coming into the country, it should not be promoting public-private partnerships with multinational corporations for the development of GMOs. “Rather, the companies pose a threat to our seed sovereignty as seen in the case of cotton. Monsanto, the US multinational seed giant, controls almost 95 per cent of the cotton seeds in India through Bt cotton. The foreign hand argument is nothing but a ploy to deflect attention from the main debate on the negative impact of GM crops,” he says. The Greenpeace accuses the GM lobby of pushing “the Malthusian argument that GM crops are a solution to food security to sell the controversial technology to the developing world. Our food grain production has been keeping pace with population growth. Nowhere in the world have GM crops helped increase food security. India destroyed its oilseed revolution by reducing the import duty. In 1993-94, India was self-sufficient in edible oils production, producing 97 per cent of the domestic needs. Import duty on crude edible oil was brought down to zero and refined edible oil to 7.5 per cent in 2010-11. No wonder, imports increased from 4.7 million tonnes in 2006 to 9.01 MT in 2012. Edible oil has got nothing to do with production, but our Agriculture Minister is under pressure from the World Bank to restructure the Indian economy,” says Neha. Greenpeace, she says, is not against the technology, but the environmental release of GMOs. “The biotech industry is anti-development as it is not allowing the opportunity to explore other alternatives under biotechnology which could be more sustainable for agriculture than GMOs,” she claims.
|
||
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
According to Reddy, the present regulatory system (GEAC) is comprehensive, but “apprehensions created mischievously led to casting aspirations on research institutions, scientists and the regulatory authority. The success of Bt cotton indicates the present research and regulations are scientific and helpful to farmers.”